Introduction
The Current Issue
Colleges are reporting a trend that many students admitted to college today are underprepared for the rigors of college level courses, and one of the most vulnerable populations, are students with a history of foster care placement. This summary highlights background information on this particular student demographic, Foster Care Alumni (FCA) and also demonstrates the need for greater supports and services targeted to this specific group of “at-risk” students. By having a better understanding of this particular student demographic, we can become more effective as a campus in helping support and retain these vulnerable students.
Many students are admitted conditionally to college with the stipulation of having to complete developmental or remedial courses (ie – math, reading, writing), prior to advancing to their degree curriculum. One sub-population of students that are most “at-risk” and “hidden in plain sight” are foster care alumni (FCA). The statistics for FCA who successfully persist after achieving admission into college are disappointing. Also, many colleges may not break out this specific student demographic from within the larger general “at-risk” student populations and research is showing this demographic of students as even more vulnerable than other “at-risk” first-generation students or students from lower socio-economic income households.
Trauma, loss, abuse and neglect, can impact a child’s development and change the neuro-pathways of children’s brain development and when combined with stress in a child’s life, the combination of factors can interfere with one’s ability to focus. One can also become
overwhelmed by not being able to read or to perform at the same levels of peers in math.
This can result in both short and long term negative outcomes for children.
Attaining higher education is important not only because it can provide a better opportunity for economic stability as an adult, but it also correlates to improved well being in physical, intellectual, and social areas, as well as improved developmental growth. Yet even when youth in foster care graduate from high school, they may not be academically prepared for post-secondary education. Studies show foster youth as less likely to have taken rigorous college preparatory courses in high school. This population of students also has a higher likelihood of having been in need of supportive services in primary and secondary school, and may have had 504 plans or IEPs. It is common for foster youth to be behind their peers in reading and math skills (ie. It is not unusual for FCA to be reading at only at a middle school level at age 18, the age of traditional high school graduates.) Therefore, FCA lacking appropriate academic preparation are often required to enroll in remedial education courses during their first year in college, causing a need for extended time for degree completion, as well as also resulting in additional costs for tuition, fees, room and board. This group of students is one of the most vulnerable populations, and hence could significantly benefit from completing a college degree program, but in order to do so they will need significant assistance and scaffolding (such as academic support, counseling, mentoring, housing, food security, and other similar supports and services as needed) and hence why colleges are beginning to create programs targeting this population of students or focusing greater emphasis on locating and engaging FCA into their existing college support programs (ie. Guardian Scholars, Seita Scholars, EOP, Foster Care to Success, etc.)
Theory
We can utilize student development frameworks to help us better understand this demographic of students. Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory offers a model that can be useful to describe the interaction that takes place between a person and their surrounding environment. Brofenbrenner redefined developmental psychology by drawing attention to the numerous influences that play into child development, starting from people and organizations close to the individual to forces that are more distant, such as national, cultural or societal forces.
Urie Brofenbrenner developed the Ecological Systems Theory to look at human development from a context of a system of relationships that form an individual’s development. Bronfenbrenner posited that individuals did not function in silos, but rather within multiple environmental and social contexts (aka, ecological systems or ecologies.) Individuals are generally involved in multiple ecosystems. The most intimate ecology being the home, moving out to the larger school ecology, and then moving further out to the society and culture.
The most developed form of Brofenbrenner’s Bioecological Model analyzes four interrelated concepts with influence on human development: Process, Person, Context, and Time (PPCT) and consists of five levels. The original model used in his child development research initially consisted of the Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem and Macrosystem. Later he added the Chronosystem which added the context of changes over time. As a result it was later referred to as his Bioecological Model.
Process – Interactions between an individual and one’s environment(s); These interactions are known as “proximal processes” but effective only if they occur regularly over a long period of time.
Person – The individual and their biological characteristics; three categories:
demand – “personal stimulus”; Examples of demand characteristics include one’s age, skin color, hair color, gender, etc.
resource – typically not immediately identifiable, but inferred from demand characteristics; connections to mental and emotional resources as well as social and material resources; Examples include skill, intelligence, access to food and shelter and loving parents
force – related to differences in personality, inspiration, and determination. This theory reveals how individuals can play an active role in changing their contexts.
Context – Bronfenbrenner noted four systems within an individual’s context or environment. These systems are the microsystem, the mesosystem, the
exosystem, and the macrosystem and are described below.
Time – The last component of the PPCT model is referred to as the chronosystem; Developmental processes likely vary according to the specific historical events that are occurring as the developing individuals are aging; significant as the features of the PPCT model can be understood by consistency and change.
Using Brofenbrenner’s bioecological framework, research can show how proximal processes, personal characteristics, environments, and time, may impact the development of individuals and the academic paths crossed enroute to higher education.
Chronosystem (changes over time) – Allows for studying different systems that influence an individual simultaneously while demonstrating diverse interconnected influences on an individual’s development. (It’s also important to be aware of different contexts because an individual may behave differently in various settings.) ; includes events, life transitions (experiences and significant occasions; death of a close family member or friend; entering or exiting foster care; becoming a college student; getting a job)
Macrosystem (social & cultural values; outermost layer) – A broader context that impacts groups of people. It consists of cultural contexts the individual is exposed to, including their race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, values, cultures, beliefs, etc.; Includes government, culture, cultural values, and beliefs, etc.
Exosystem (indirect environment) – Consists of processes occurring between multiple contexts, one which does not directly involve the individual, but indirectly impacts the individual; Includes financial aid services; availability of counseling, etc
Mesosystem (connection between contexts) – Represents links between proximal ecologies (ie: church, school, home, and parental participation with the school); can be viewed as a system of microsystems
Microsystem (immediate environment, innermost layer) – It is the closest environment which the individual lives within; the proximal ecologies within which an individual develops including relationships within the family, school environments and with peers;
Individual/Child (ontogenic level) – This is the ecology of the individual representing details within the individual that influences developmental adaptations.
Summary
Themes:
1. Paths to Higher Education (Macrosystem/ Chronosystem)
2. Educational Resources and Support Systems (Exosystem)
3. Support and Strength Systems (Mesosystem)
4. Overcoming Struggles & Barriers, Self-initiation, Self-determination (Microsystem)
The macrosystem refers to systems that encompass the larger society and culture and includes socio-economic status, which was a common theme noted by FCA. Many noted that they grew up in communities that were poor and where people were struggling and many did not work or if they worked they were working poor and grew up in hardship, and this helped motivate them to not be another statistic and a desire to move up into a higher social class status. They also noted that their macrosystems including the negative social settings and circumstances they faced, motivate them to work hard and try to better themselves. Their neighborhoods and the values, customs, and beliefs they were accustomed, motivated them to take a different path and pursue higher education, with support, help and assistance from family (foster or biological), friends, school faculty, as well as government and private agencies, and personal, educational, and financial assistance. They also noted they wanted to beat the statistics and odds regarding the typical poor outcomes of foster care alumni.
The chronosystems FCA were exposed to profoundly impacted them and contributed to their decision to go to college. Chronosystems refer to events or transitions that occurred in an individual’s life, such as death of somebody close (parent, family member, primary caregiver) or transitions such as entering or leaving foster care, graduating from high school, entering or discharge from the military, transitioning from a two-year commuter community college to a four-year residential college, etc.
The exosystem involves links between two or more social structures and settings and situations which FCA find themselves involved, such as school systems, social services, the child welfare system, health care services, court systems, etc. (For example, a student’s ability to attend college is another example of an exosystem involving a school system and systems/processes involved that provide the resources for the FCA to afford and attend college, such as financial aid.) Exosystems are important systems FCA may need to interact with for resources of supports and services, such as educational resources and support networks or campus health centers, allowing FCA to avail and benefit from on campus. Some campuses provide targeted support programs specifically designed to support FCA (such as Guardian Scholars, Seita Scholars Program, etc.) FCA noted how educational resources and support services and programs provided evidence for how FCA were positively influenced by exosystems encompassing social services, medicaid and health care, benefits provided by government and public agencies, and support of their development and being able to afford and attend college.
The mesosystem consists of connections between different microsystems and connections between people most important and closest in an individual’s life. The third theme of supports and strengths systems focused around an individual’s mesosystem. Many FCA noted that they relied on themselves to accomplish their goals, but many goals would not have been attainable without assistance from others. They knew they needed to stay focused and motivated, but sometimes, they also had to figure out how to ask for help. During times of hardship or struggles, some students felt like giving up and subsequently had to give into their stubbornness and ask for help upon realizing they couldn’t complete certain responsibilities alone. Instructors, counselors, or friends were typically noted as those FCA turned for both academic or personal support, resulting from a lack of more immediate familial connections that non foster youth can turn to. Many FCA noted that the staff from academic campus support programs were helpful in supporting them not only academically but also by providing them with information and resources to turn to when they could not assist them.
Within Brofenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory, the microsystem is central to an individual’s development. Many FCA noted they faced many obstacles such as frequently finding a balance with managing their time between socializing and studying, as well as also struggled with managing their emotions. Many FCA described themselves as independent and therefore were part of their own microsystem. Their thoughts, skills, and self-initiative directly impacts the person they are growing up to be. Many FCA viewed defined themselves as self-motivated, learning from a young age that they had to rely on themselves because they did not always have consistent support or guidance from adults in their lifes. But Brofenbrenner’s theoretical framework would remind them that they are part of a larger system and it was a result of a combination of interconnected systems that has resulted in them being where they currently are and that they did not reach this point by being a silo.
The following list includes barriers that can hinder FCA future success in college:
Inadequate academic preparation during P/K-12 school years
Numerous placement changes may interrupt a students P/K-12 education
Percent of foster youth who change schools when first entering care : 56%-75%
Percent of 17-18 year olds in care who have experienced 5+ school changes : 34%
Likelihood of 17-18 year old foster youth having an out-of-school suspension : 2x that of other students
Likelihood of 17-18 year old foster youth being expelled : 3x that of other students
Average reading level of 17-18 year olds in foster care : 7th grade
Likelihood of foster youth receiving special education : 2.5 – 3.5x that of others
Percent of foster youth who complete high school by 18 : 50%
Percent of 17-18 year old foster youth who want to go to college : 84%
Percent of foster youth who graduated from high school who attend college : 20%
Percent of former foster youth who attain a bachelor’s degree : < 10%
A common theme was that those FCA that were successful in college, had resilience as well as a caring adult (family member, foster parent, teacher, minister, counselor, mentor or other support network) that kept them motivated and helped them to stay on track. Some of the other concerns FCA in college voiced struggling with included housing and food security issues, financial aid, health care, emotional health, employment, as well as managing and balancing academics and social life.
We are used to thinking about educational achievement of vulnerable youth as an issue of the individual child, but is a broader responsibility that encompasses not only the family or primary caregivers, but also schools, community and society systems issues, with a need to foster collaboration between the education, child welfare and social services systems and provide interventions to enhance the education of the most vulnerable individuals. The resources spent on improving educational outcomes for these students is worth the investment in the improved life outcomes of foster youth that will also strengthen communities, the economy, and society.
A limitation of this research was that the students in the study were already admitted and attending college and excluded students that were not admitted (due to not meeting college entrance requirements or not being informed of the process for admission and financial aid available, etc.) and hence this may not be a fully representative picture regarding the academic progress of a wider population of post-secondary population of FCA. (For example, we do not know the status of how their high school cohorts, both in foster care and in general, are now doing in comparison.)
Recommendations for applications on college campuses
Colleges often have the ability to implement policies that can increase student retention and success.
Colleges can track the progress and success of FCA, during each semester as well as over time until the student graduates.
Colleges can make participation in supportive services mandatory as part of the requirements for admission and retention, especially if students were in need of remedial courses or when their professors are observing warning signs that the student might be struggling in courses.
Colleges can also create living and learning environments that connects this population of students to supports and services created for them.
Colleges can implement structured academic support programs providing supports and services directed to this population of students.
Colleges can implement priority registration and scheduling.
Colleges can implement intrusive advising.
Colleges can ensure that the mentors and advisors working with this population of students are familiar with the regulations, programs and resources that exist at the federal, state, local and campus levels to support this population of students.